Help
Storm Reports
Links System
WeatherPedia
Multimedia Show
Photography
Staff List
Make a Donation
Easternuswx GFS
RaleighWX's Model Pages
Quoting a blog entry at http://tinyurl.com/23nzld
"The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
"The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
"'If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns,' Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website."
More at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...0a-88824bb8e528
or
http://tinyurl.com/23nzld
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
#6
Clark 
- Posts: 1,061
- Joined: 11-December 06
Posted 17 January 2007 - 09:41 PM
"Climate catastrophe?"
There are probably a number of meteorologists in her own shop who don't subscribe to that. Heck, there are probably a large number of meteorologists here who don't subscribe to that.
Needless to say, the AMS doesn't necessarily bow down to the overzealous calls of one so-called expert. Is climate change occurring? Probably. Let's not get into cause and effect and the end result, however, and in most cases it isn't going to come up on TV except under special circumstances.
There are probably a number of meteorologists in her own shop who don't subscribe to that. Heck, there are probably a large number of meteorologists here who don't subscribe to that.
Needless to say, the AMS doesn't necessarily bow down to the overzealous calls of one so-called expert. Is climate change occurring? Probably. Let's not get into cause and effect and the end result, however, and in most cases it isn't going to come up on TV except under special circumstances.
#7
Mr Bob
- Dolorous whickering
-
- Posts: 13,136
- Joined: 11-August 04
- Location:Ooltewah, TN
Posted 17 January 2007 - 09:44 PM
What a dissappointment....what would you expect from a so-called climate expert who interviews Ted Turner to back up her views....
One thing is for sure...No one will tune in just to see what outlandish thing Heidi Cullen says next....
One thing is for sure...No one will tune in just to see what outlandish thing Heidi Cullen says next....
#8
olddoos
- Posts: 59
- Joined: 04-January 07
- Location:Williamson ny
Posted 17 January 2007 - 09:46 PM
Clark, on Jan 17 2007, 09:41 PM, said:
"Climate catastrophe?"
There are probably a number of meteorologists in her own shop who don't subscribe to that. Heck, there are probably a large number of meteorologists here who don't subscribe to that.
Needless to say, the AMS doesn't necessarily bow down to the overzealous calls of one so-called expert. Is climate change occurring? Probably. Let's not get into cause and effect and the end result, however, and in most cases it isn't going to come up on TV except under special circumstances.
There are probably a number of meteorologists in her own shop who don't subscribe to that. Heck, there are probably a large number of meteorologists here who don't subscribe to that.
Needless to say, the AMS doesn't necessarily bow down to the overzealous calls of one so-called expert. Is climate change occurring? Probably. Let's not get into cause and effect and the end result, however, and in most cases it isn't going to come up on TV except under special circumstances.
she's lost it
#9
Jack O.
- Posts: 9,768
- Joined: 12-February 06
- Location:Hammonton, NJ
Posted 17 January 2007 - 09:58 PM
I know some from TWC are registered or view this forum, but I have no problems saying that I am glad I haven't watched for a while, and that they are irrelevant to me. There is nothing they have that I need.
#11
CalUWxBill
- Kliq Member
-
- Posts: 6,720
- Joined: 25-January 04
- Location:Tucson, AZ
Posted 17 January 2007 - 10:22 PM
I saw the blog post from Christine Todd Wittman on the weather.com site. It was far more rational than what Dr. Cullen said. I think it was a mistake for her to support the AMS pressuring meteorologists to agree with certain views. I do agree that meteorologists who give their opinion on the subject to the media should do their research, and they should maintain opinions based on facts as their own interpretations. Scientists disagree all the time, if there was nothing to disagree about there would be no use for your tax dollars to go towards my education and research.
#12
turtlehurricane
- Posts: 22,308
- Joined: 31-May 06
- Location:Southwest Ranches, FL
Posted 17 January 2007 - 11:04 PM
Thats ridiculous. She should be ousted from her job for that.
#13
dzop
- Posts: 1,361
- Joined: 08-February 05
- Location:Manhattan, NY
Posted 17 January 2007 - 11:41 PM
Wow, guys, the strawman called, he wants you to let him go...
Heidi Cullen did NOT call for decertifying the skeptics, as claimed in the title of this thread and in the blog linked in the thread below.
She called for decertifying meteorologists who refuse to familiarize themselves with the literature. What she means, if you actually read her full post, is that meterologists who claim to be skeptics or contrarians but haven't familiarized themselves with the literature, who claim global warming is "political" without understanding the substance, should be decertified.
To quote Dr. Cullen:
"They owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy."
Heidi Cullen did NOT call for decertifying the skeptics, as claimed in the title of this thread and in the blog linked in the thread below.
She called for decertifying meteorologists who refuse to familiarize themselves with the literature. What she means, if you actually read her full post, is that meterologists who claim to be skeptics or contrarians but haven't familiarized themselves with the literature, who claim global warming is "political" without understanding the substance, should be decertified.
To quote Dr. Cullen:
"They owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy."
#14
turtlehurricane
- Posts: 22,308
- Joined: 31-May 06
- Location:Southwest Ranches, FL
Posted 17 January 2007 - 11:46 PM
dzop, on Jan 17 2007, 11:41 PM, said:
Wow, guys, the strawman called, he wants you to let him go...
Heidi Cullen did NOT call for decertifying the skeptics, as claimed in the title of this thread and in the blog linked in the thread below.
She called for decertifying meteorologists who refuse to familiarize themselves with the literature. What she means, if you actually read her full post, is that meterologists who claim to be skeptics or contrarians but haven't familiarized themselves with the literature, who claim global warming is "political" without understanding the substance, should be decertified.
To quote Dr. Cullen:
"They owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy."
Heidi Cullen did NOT call for decertifying the skeptics, as claimed in the title of this thread and in the blog linked in the thread below.
She called for decertifying meteorologists who refuse to familiarize themselves with the literature. What she means, if you actually read her full post, is that meterologists who claim to be skeptics or contrarians but haven't familiarized themselves with the literature, who claim global warming is "political" without understanding the substance, should be decertified.
To quote Dr. Cullen:
"They owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy."
Don't be fooled by her pussyfooting around the issue, she was obviously saying all meteorologists who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming should have their AMS seal taken away.
#15
WxMidwest
- Posts: 2,704
- Joined: 22-August 04
- Location:Vernon County,Wi
Posted 17 January 2007 - 11:49 PM
Why is the Weather Channel Employing somebody who is not objective about global warming/climate change, TWC sure has went a long way from it's 1980's content....
The Global Elitist political machine is behind the global warming argument that Heidi Cullen buys into. These guys include Oppenheimer Funded Entities and Sierra Club Folks....
Another excuse for regulation and supranationalism....
The Global Elitist political machine is behind the global warming argument that Heidi Cullen buys into. These guys include Oppenheimer Funded Entities and Sierra Club Folks....
Another excuse for regulation and supranationalism....
#16
WxMidwest
- Posts: 2,704
- Joined: 22-August 04
- Location:Vernon County,Wi
Posted 17 January 2007 - 11:51 PM
Mr Bob, on Jan 17 2007, 10:44 PM, said:
What a dissappointment....what would you expect from a so-called climate expert who interviews Ted Turner to back up her views....
One thing is for sure...No one will tune in just to see what outlandish thing Heidi Cullen says next....
One thing is for sure...No one will tune in just to see what outlandish thing Heidi Cullen says next....
Exactly, Ted Turner has a Global/World View Agenda that fits well into the subject of his political outcome for "Global Warming"...
He didn't give 1 Billion dollars to the United Nations for nothing....
#17
turtlehurricane
- Posts: 22,308
- Joined: 31-May 06
- Location:Southwest Ranches, FL
Posted 17 January 2007 - 11:58 PM
I made a comment there, hopefully it will spark some discussion and realization there...
This discussion by Cullen is very offensive to the science of meteorology in my opinion.
Clearly, Dr. Cullen is trying to say anthropogenic global warming is the factual cause of global warming, and ignoring this fact is junk science. The truth is, there is alot of data supporting climate change in the past due to other factors, that are probably occurring as we speak. This science which has been pitted against anthropogenic global warming, merely because it threatens the theory of it, is NOT junk science in any way.
Also, skepticism is needed on both sides to advance meteorology. To hide the facts on either side will lead to no results.
Thus, calling for the removal of ones AMS seal due to being a skeptic about anthropogenic global warming is inflammatory, ignorant, and out of place. If one earns their seal, they are in their full right to express opinions about global warming.
--Zach
This discussion by Cullen is very offensive to the science of meteorology in my opinion.
Clearly, Dr. Cullen is trying to say anthropogenic global warming is the factual cause of global warming, and ignoring this fact is junk science. The truth is, there is alot of data supporting climate change in the past due to other factors, that are probably occurring as we speak. This science which has been pitted against anthropogenic global warming, merely because it threatens the theory of it, is NOT junk science in any way.
Also, skepticism is needed on both sides to advance meteorology. To hide the facts on either side will lead to no results.
Thus, calling for the removal of ones AMS seal due to being a skeptic about anthropogenic global warming is inflammatory, ignorant, and out of place. If one earns their seal, they are in their full right to express opinions about global warming.
--Zach
#18
rainstorm
- Posts: 13,733
- Joined: 19-May 04
- Location:va beach
Posted 18 January 2007 - 12:00 AM
i think i am correct in saying the global warming leftists are fast becoming stalinists. first we have leftist senators demanding critics be silenced and now any pro that dares not to follow the left's thought police on the issue should be stripped of thier credentials. what amazes me is some people still think liberals support free speech. what heidi cullen is advocating would make the soviet union proud. think like we tell you to think or you are gone.
#20
Heidi the Horrible
- Posts: 2,085
- Joined: 28-February 05
- Location:CHO...central Virginia
Posted 18 January 2007 - 12:14 AM
This is what she acually wrote:
--------------------------------------
"I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement. "
--------------------------------------
That is all very reasonable IMO and a far cry from how it was presented in these places...
http://tinyurl.com/23nzld
http://epw.senate.go...0a-88824bb8e528
The real fool here is not Dr. Cullen, but Marc Morano who wrote the blog post.
In the Global Warming debate be very careful what you read because everyone is spinning it.
--------------------------------------
"I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement. "
--------------------------------------
That is all very reasonable IMO and a far cry from how it was presented in these places...
http://tinyurl.com/23nzld
http://epw.senate.go...0a-88824bb8e528
The real fool here is not Dr. Cullen, but Marc Morano who wrote the blog post.
In the Global Warming debate be very careful what you read because everyone is spinning it.
